a clarification to field-level @Access

[gavinking]

and move footnotes into main text

[sebersole]

What do you think about clarifying "It is an error if a default access type cannot be determined"? I think the general approach for all providers is to look at @Id / @EmbeddedId, so maybe codify that?

Although, the question could then become why is this:

@Entity
class Book {
    @Id
    Integer id;
}

not functionally the same as

@Entity
@Access(FIELD)
class Book {
    @Id
    Integer id;
}

for the purpose of something like

@Entity
class Book {
    @Id
    Integer id;
    ...

    @Access(PROPERTY)
    String getIsbn() ...
}

The only distinction being implicit v. explicit in that case.

[gavinking]

It is an error if a default access type cannot be determined

For my part, I'm completely happy to add that. @lukasj WDYT?

Although, the question could then become...

So there's two things you could say, I suppose. Either:

• @Access is not considered a "mapping annotation" for the purposes of that section, and does not affect determination of the default access type, in which case your code would be accepted, or
• @Access is considered a "mapping annotation", and that code is an error.

Either option is self-consistent, and either option is fine by me.

[sebersole]

It is an error if a default access type cannot be determined

For my part, I'm completely happy to add that. @lukasj WDYT?

That is already in the original and in your PR. I was just saying we might consider adding the bit about @Id to explicitly note that that does in fact constitute a determination.

[sebersole]

So there's two things you could say, I suppose. Either:

I also don't much care which way we interpret that. But having it explicit and consistent is a win imo

[gavinking]

So there's two things you could say, I suppose. Either:

I also don't much care which way we interpret that. But having it explicit and consistent is a win imo

Let's migrate this discussion to issue #558.